(Vanity) Gardasil and the Reproductive Rights Agenda

February 2, 2007 | Rick Vassar CPCU ARM AIS ARM-P

[Rick Vassar]

In 1973, the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, ruled invalid any law which would prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy if she chooses. Let me say up front that I believe this to be the moral equivalent of thinning out the herd for most, since it seems to be one of the most fervent arguments of those who support this “right”.

What will we do with all these unwanted babies? Who will pay for them? The government can’t do it all. Besides, I have the right to choose whether I want to have this baby, and it’s none of your business.

Now, along comes Gardasil. Gardasil is being marketed as the newest miracle drug, a vaccine against the HPV virus, a sexually transmitted disease linked to cervical cancer.

Excellent! Great! Wonderful! Someone told me it could be the greatest medical breakthrough since Thalidomide.

You remember Thalidomide. It was the great miracle drug of the late 1950’s, used to relieve morning sickness and induce sleep in pregnant women. The side effects: Thalidomide stunted the growth of limbs and organs in the womb, and led to severe birth defects in the children of mothers who took Thalidomide.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I hope this stuff works, and if it is proven to be effective without any long term side effects, I will be the first to stand and cheer. The problem is that we just don’t know.

Today, Texas governor Rick Perry signed the order requiring this vaccination. West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, the states have introduced or are planning to introduce legislation that would make it mandatory for prepubescent females to receive this vaccine to protect them against the risk of HPV and in turn cervical cancer. This is where it gets really dicey.

As with many other drugs approved by the FDA, the long term effects are not known. If a parent should choose to have their child receive this vaccine, and it’s approved by the FDA, they can.

But to make it mandatory by statute is obscene. And where are the “pro choice” folks in this discussion. It appears they are lining up on the side of mandatory shots. If they aren’t, their silence on this issue is deafening.

Feminists should wise up. If you are for the right to choose, be for the right to choose. But if you are going to use the legislature and the courts to mandate your vision of the best interests of women, then your agenda is less rational and coherent than you have attempted to forward.

The long term effects of this vaccine have yet to be determined. Yet, the long term emotional and psychological effects of abortion on families in general and women in particular is well chronicled.

Disposable pregnancy (abortion) is forwarded, as is mandatory vaccination of females for sexually transmitted diseases. Yet the long term effects of these life decisions are not considered.

So, ladies, what is it:

Are you controlling the right to choose, or choosing the right to control?

Posted by Rick Vassar, CPCU ARM at 11:39

[luckystarmom]

Here's a link to another story about HPV.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021807dntexhpv.203fbaf.html

[perseid 67]

The vaccine makers should target those women who are most endangered by cervical cancer.The vaccine should be given out on a sliding scale. Poor girls who are at risk(blood type A+, AB+)should receive the vaccine for free. Insurance companies should give discounts to those who are genetically vulnerable to cancer for receiving this shot. Until the vaccine has been properly tested on eleven year old girls ,no eleven year old girl should receive this vaccine.

I disagree with people who believe that the main objection to this vaccine is that the vaccine will cause promiscuity. Most people object to Governor Perry's mandate because not all women are equally at risk for developing cervical cancer, and no one can say for certain that the vaccine is safe for eleven year old girls.

[Creationist]

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

[luckystarmom]

I have 10 year old daughters. We live in California, and they are starting pushing Gardisil out here now.

I don't think it causes promiscuity either. As a parent, I could easily get around all of that. I would just tell my daughters that it is another vaccine to prevent a virus called HPV. They would not even ask me any more questions. They wouldn't ask how you get HPV.

However, I want to wait a few years before I think about giving it to my daughters. I'm thinking we may be able to wait until they are 18. They'll turn 18 when they are seniors in high school (before senior prom & college).

If they seem too interested in boys, then we may have to do it sooner.

However, I know I have a few more years before I have to reach that decision point. That means I can wait and see if there are any side-effects.

I don't think the govt should mandate this. I'm a parent and I can figure this out myself (along with my hubby).

[lqclamar]

Well, be sure then to curse Uncle Sam every morning as you wake up free from tuberculosis, small pox, polio and yellow fever.

...all of which are communicable by proximity or normal contact. HPV is transmitted sexually.

[Alter Kaker]

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

I'm skeptical that Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) said anything of the kind. Have a citation for that quotation?

[webstersII]

"Have a citation for that quotation?"

http://www.thinkexist.com/English/Author/x/Author_2104_1.htm